DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 19, “the first exhaust holes” is read as “the plurality of first exhaust holes”.
In claim 1, line 20, “the second plurality of exhaust holes” is read as “ the plurality of second exhaust holes”.
In claim 4, line 2, “ the first exhaust holes” is read as “the plurality of first exhaust holes”.
In claim 6, line 19, “the first exhaust holes” is read as “the plurality of first exhaust holes”.
In claim 6, line 20, “the second plurality of exhaust holes” is read as “ the plurality of second exhaust holes”.
In claim 9, line 1, “ the first exhaust holes” is read as “the plurality of first exhaust holes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a locking mechanism” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN207452527 (hereinafter CN’527).
Regarding claim 6, CN’527 teaches a method of steaming an item, comprising:
(a) providing a handheld appliance (fig. 2, device 100) comprising:
an upper arm (fig. 2, first body 20);
a lower arm (fig. 2, second body 30) attached at one end to an end of the upper arm;
a steam generation unit mounted on the upper arm (fig. 2, plates 5, 6, machine translation, para. [0039], the water is vaporized by the heating plates to form steam);
a water reservoir (fig. 2, water tank 1) located in the upper arm;
a water pump (fig. 2, water pump 4) fluidly connected to the water reservoir and to the steam generation unit;
a switch (fig. 1, steam switch 2) operatively connected with the steam generation unit and the water pump (machine translation, if steam is needed, the steam switch 2 is toggled, and the water pump 4 starts to pump water to the heating plate to generate water vapor);
a heating plate (fig. 2, plate 18) mounted near a free end of the upper arm, the heating plate including a plurality of first exhaust holes (fig. 2, holes 10) that are in fluid communication with the steam generation unit (fig. 2, machine translation, para. [0039]-[0040], steam is sprayed out through holes 10); and
a bearing plate (fig. 2, plate 19) mounted at a free end of the lower arm, the bearing plate including a plurality of second exhaust holes (fig. 2, holes 9);
(b) generating steam with the steam generation unit (machine translation, para. [0039]);
(c) moving the upper arm toward the lower arm from an open position to a closed position to bring the heating plate closely adjacent to the bearing plate (fig. 4) and to cause the switch to activate the steam generation unit and the pump (machine translation, in order to increase the ironing effect, hot steam is also applied during clamping and the steam switch 2 is provided for the user; for the greatest convenience, the user can let the ironing device provide water vapor as needed);
(d) locking, with a locking mechanism (fig. 4, machine translation, para. [0043], hooks 11 and 12), the upper arm relative to the lower arm to lock the appliance in closed position; and
(e) passing steam from the steam generation unit through the first exhaust holes and through at least one of the second plurality of exhaust holes and onto an item to be steamed (machine translation, para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 7, CN’527 teaches during step (d) each of the plurality of second exhaust holes is substantially aligned with a respective first exhaust hole (machine translation, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, CN’527 teaches the steam generation unit includes a heating element (fig. 2, heating plates 5,6), and wherein the heating element is positioned to heat the heating plate when the appliance is in the closed position (fig. 4, machine translation, para. [0039], the water is vaporized by the heating plates to form steam; para. [0040], surface 18 is provided with a steam outlet 10, through which water vapor is sprayed out; and the steam plays a role in ironing).
Regarding claim 9, CN’527 teaches at least one of the first exhaust holes is smaller in diameter than at least one second exhaust hole (machine translation, para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, CN’527 teaches the upper arm is pivotally attached to the lower arm (fig. 2, through rotary shaft 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN207452527 in view of Fabrikant (US 2010/0199528).
Regarding claim 1, CN’527 teaches a method of steaming an item, comprising:
(a) providing a handheld appliance (fig. 2, device 100) comprising: an upper arm (fig. 2, first body 20); a lower arm (fig. 2, second body 30) attached at one end to an end of the upper arm; a steam generation unit mounted on the upper arm (fig. 2, plates 5, 6, machine translation, para. [0039], the water is vaporized by the heating plates to form steam); a water reservoir (fig. 2, water tank 1) located in the upper arm and/or the lower arm; a water pump (fig. 2, water pump 4) fluidly connected to the water reservoir and to the steam generation unit; a heating plate (fig. 2, plate 18) mounted near a free end of the upper arm, the heating plate including a plurality of first exhaust holes (fig. 2, holes 10) that are in fluid communication with the steam generation unit (fig. 2, machine translation, para. [0039]-[0040], steam is sprayed out through holes 10); and a bearing plate (fig. 2, plate 19) mounted on the lower arm at a free end thereof, the bearing plate including a plurality of second exhaust holes (fig. 2, holes 9);
(b) generating steam with the steam generation unit (machine translation, para. [0039]);
(c) moving the upper arm toward the lower arm from an open position to a closed position to bring the heating plate closely adjacent to the bearing plate (fig. 4);
(d) locking (fig. 4, machine translation, para. [0043], hooks 11 and 12), the upper arm relative to the lower arm to lock the handheld appliance in its closed position; and
(e) passing steam from the steam generation unit through the first exhaust holes and through at least one of the second plurality of exhaust holes and onto an item to be steamed (machine translation, para. [0043]).
CN’527 does not teach a biasing member that engages the upper arm and the lower arm, wherein the biasing member biases the upper arm and lower arm toward the open position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fabrikant teaches a biasing member (fig. 4, a spring/hinge member 18) that engages the upper arm and the lower arm, wherein the biasing member biases the upper arm and lower arm toward the open position (para. [0021], the spring/hinge mechanism 18 separates the arms 12 significantly at the distal ends).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine CN’527 with a biasing member of Fabrikant for the benefit of keeping the heat plates separated until hand pressure is applied to clamp the fabric to be ironed (Fabrikant, para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method CN’527-Fabrikant teaches during step (d) each of the plurality of second exhaust holes is substantially aligned with a respective first exhaust hole (CN’527, machine translation, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method CN’527-Fabrikant teaches the steam generation unit includes a heating element (CN’527, fig. 2, heating plates 5,6), and wherein the heating element is positioned to heat the heating plate when the appliance is in the closed position (CN’527, fig. 2, machine translation, para. [0039], the water is vaporized by the heating plates to form steam; para. [0040], surface 18 is provided with a steam outlet 10, through which water vapor is sprayed out; and the steam plays a role in ironing).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method CN’527-Fabrikant teaches at least one of the first exhaust holes is smaller in diameter than at least one second exhaust hole (CN’527, machine translation, para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method CN’527-Fabrikant teaches the upper arm is pivotally attached to the lower arm (CN’527, fig. 2, through rotary shaft 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights